United States v. Deleon
| Decision Date | 01 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. CR 15-4268 JB,CR 15-4268 JB |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ANGEL DELEON, JOE LAWRENCE GALLEGOS, EDWARD TROUP, a.k.a. "Huero Troup," LEONARD LUJAN, BILLY GARCIA, a.k.a. "Wild Bill," EUGENE MARTINEZ, a.k.a. "Little Guero," ALLEN PATTERSON, CHRISTOPHER CHAVEZ, a.k.a. "Critter," JAVIER ALONSO, a.k.a. "Wineo," ARTURO ARNULFO GARCIA, a.k.a. "Shotgun," BENJAMIN CLARK, a.k.a. "Cyclone," RUBEN HERNANDEZ; JERRY ARMENTA, a.k.a. "Creeper," JERRY MONTOYA, a.k.a. "Boxer," MARIO RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a. "Blue," TIMOTHY MARTINEZ, a.k.a. "Red," MAURICIO VARELA, a.k.a. "Archie," a.k.a. "Hog Nuts," DANIEL SANCHEZ, a.k.a. "Dan Dan," GERALD ARCHULETA, a.k.a. "Styx," a.k.a. "Grandma," CONRAD VUXEGAS, a.k.a. "Chitmon," ANTHONY RAY BACA, a.k.a. "Pup," ROBERT MARTINEZ, a.k.a. "Baby Rob," ROY PAUL MARTINEZ, a.k.a. "Shadow," CHRISTOPHER GARCIA, CARLOS HERRERA, a.k.a. "Lazy," RUDY PEREZ, a.k.a. "Ru Dog," ANDREW GALLEGOS, a.k.a. "Smiley," SANTOS GONZALEZ; PAUL RIVERA, SHAUNA GUTIERREZ, and BRANDY RODRIGUEZ, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) Defendant Billy Garcia's Motion in Limine Regarding Alleged Bad Acts, filed October 10, 2017 (Doc. 1308)("B. Garcia's First Motion"); (ii) Defendant Edward Troup's Motion in Limine Regarding Alleged Bad Acts, filed November 30, 2017 (Doc. 1504)("Troup's First Motion"); (iii) Defendant Rudy Perez' Opposed Motion to exclude references to and Evidence of Unrelated "Enterprise" Acts, filed December 1, 2017 (Doc. 1512)("Perez' First Motion"); (iv) Defendant Daniel Sanchez' Motion in Limine to Prohibit Government from Making Statements or Arguments that Improperly Suggest that Propensity Character Inferences Can or Should be Made from Extrinsic Act Evidence, filed December 1, 2017 (Doc. 1519)("Sanchez' First Motion"); (v) Defendant Daniel Sanchez' Motion in Limine to Prohibit the Government From Introducing Evidence of Alleged "Bad Acts," filed December 1, 2017 (Doc. 1530)("Sanchez' Second Motion"); (vi) Defendant Christopher Chavez' Motion in Limine Regarding Alleged Bad Acts, filed December 1, 2017 (Doc. 1531)("Chavez' First Motion"); (vii) Defendant Allen Patterson's Motion in Limine Regarding Alleged Bad Acts, filed December 1, 2017 (Doc. 1532)("Patterson's First Motion"); (viii) Defendant Anthony Ray Baca's Motion in Limine to Prohibit Government from Introducing Evidence of Alleged "Bad Acts," filed December 4, 2017 (Doc. 1538)("Baca's First Motion"); (ix) Defendant Anthony Ray Baca's Motion in Limine to Prohibit Government Attorneys from Using Rule 405, 608 or 609 Character Evidence Without Judicial Approval, filed December 4, 2017 (Doc. 1539)("Baca's Second Motion); (x) Defendant Carlos Herrera's Motion in Limine Regarding Alleged Bad Acts, filed December 7, 2017 (Doc. 1549)("Herrera's First Motion"); (xi) Defendant Christopher Garcia's Motion in Limine to Prohibit the Government From Introducing Evidence of Alleged "Bad Acts," filed December 8, 2017 (Doc. 1555)("C. Garcia's First Motion"); (xii) Defendant Rudy Perez' Motion in Limine Regarding Alleged Bad Acts, filed December 9, 2017 (Doc. 1558)("Perez' Second Motion"); (xiii) Defendant Joe Gallegos' Motion in Limine to Prohibit the Government from Introducing Evidence of Alleged "Bad Acts," filed January 3, 2018 (Doc. 1602)("J. Gallegos' First Motion"); (xiv) Defendant Daniel Sanchez' Second Motion In Limine To Prohibit Government From Introducing Evidence Of Alleged "Bad Acts" Based On Government's January 22, 2018 "Bad Act" Disclosure, filed January 24, 2018 (Doc. 1684)("Sanchez' Renewed Motion"); (xv) Defendant Rudy Perez' Second Motion in Limine Regarding Alleged Bad Acts, filed January 24, 2018 (Doc. 1686)("Perez' Renewed Motion"); (xvi) Defendant Carlos Herrera's Motion in Limine To Exclude Purported Rule 404(b) Evidence, filed January 24, 2018 (Doc. 1687)("Herrera's Renewed Motion"); (xvii) Defendant Anthony Ray Baca's Renewed Motion In Limine To Prohibit Government From Introducing Evidence Of Alleged "Bad Acts", filed January 25, 2018 (Doc. 1702)("Baca's Renewed Motion"); (xviii) the United States' Motion in Limine Regarding Edward Troup, filed March 12, 2018 (Doc. 1976)("First U.S. MIL"); and (xix) The United States' Sealed Motion In Limine To Admit Evidence Intrinsic To The Crimes Charged And Notice Of Other Crimes Or Bad Acts Pursuant To Rule 404(B), filed April 15, 2018 (Doc. 2114)("Second U.S. MIL"). The Court held hearings on December 19, 2017; January 26, 2018; March 12, 2018; and April 3, 2018. The primary issue is whether the Plaintiff United States of America's proposed prior-acts evidence is permissible under rules 403 and 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence to prove the enterprise element under18 U.S.C. § 1959 ("VICAR"), or whether such evidence is permissible for another purpose, such as to prove the SNM enterprise and its purpose, or as evidence intrinsic to the charged offenses. The Court concludes that the United States does not offer the First Trial Defendants' prior acts as character evidence under rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Instead, the United States'prior-acts evidence is largely relevant, and not unfairly prejudicial under rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, to prove VICAR's enterprise element. The Defendants are correct, however, that some of the United States' proffered prior-acts evidence are irrelevant to this case. The Court concludes that the same holds true for the second trial, with the exception of Troup's, B. Garcia's, and A. Garcia's threats against the United States' witnesses, which are admissible under rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Further, the Court concludes that the United States may not make propensity arguments or ask the jury to draw such inferences. Finally, the Court concludes that the United States may impeach any of the Defendants' character witnesses by asking questions about the Defendants' prior acts, provided that the United States has a good faith basis that the act occurred, and provided that the United States does not ask hypothetical questions pertaining specifically to the allegations in Counts 6-12 of the Second Superseding Indictment.
The Court takes its background facts from the Second Superseding Indictment, filed March 9, 2017 (Doc. 947)("Indictment"). The background facts are largely unchanged from those facts that the Court provided in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, 323 F.R.D. 672, filed December 18, 2017 (Doc. 1585). The Court does not set forth these facts as findings or the truth. The Court recognizes that the factual background largely reflects the United States' version of events.
This case deals with crimes that the Syndicato de Nuevo Mexico ("SNM") allegedly committed through its members. Indictment at 2. SNM, through its members, operated in the District of New Mexico at all relevant times, and its members engaged in acts of violence and other criminal activities, "including murder, kidnapping, attempted murder, conspiracy to manufacture/distribute narcotics, and firearms trafficking." Indictment at 2. SNM constitutes an enterprise "as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1959(b)(2), that is, a group ofindividuals associated in fact that engaged in, and the activities of which affected, interstate and foreign commerce." Indictment at 2-3.
SNM is a prison gang formed in the early 1980s at the Penitentiary of New Mexico ("PNM") after a violent prison riot at PNM during which inmates assaulted and raped twelve correctional officers after taking them hostage. Indictment at 3. During the riot, thirty-three inmates were killed, and over 200 inmates were injured. See Indictment at 3. After the PNM riot, SNM expanded throughout the state's prison system and has had as many as 500 members. See Indictment at 3. SNM now has approximately 250 members, including "a 'panel' or 'mesa' (Spanish for table) of leaders who issue orders to subordinate gang members." Indictment at 3. SNM controls drug distribution and other illegal activities within the New Mexico penal system, but it also conveys orders to members outside the prison system. See Indictment at 3. Members who rejoin their communities after completing their sentences are expected to further the gang's goals: primarily the control and profit of narcotics trafficking. See Indictment at 3-4. Members who fail "to show continued loyalty to the gang [are] disciplined in various ways, [] includ[ing] murder and assaults." Indictment at 4. SNM also intimidates and influences smaller New Mexico Hispanic gangs to expand its power. See Indictment at 4. If another gang does not follow SNM's demands, SNM will assault or kill one of the other gang's members to show its power. See Indictment at 4. SNM's rivalry with other gangs also manifests itself in beatings and stabbings within the prison system. See Indictment at 4. SNM engages in violence "to assert its gang identity, to claim or protect its territory, to challenge or respond to challenges, to retaliate against a rival gang or member, [and] to gain notoriety and show its superiority over others." Indictment at 4. To show its strength and influence, SNM expects its members to confront and attack any suspected law enforcement informants, cooperating witnesses, homosexuals, or sex offenders. SeeIndictment at 5. To achieve its purpose of preserving its power, SNM uses intimidation, violence, threats of violence, assaults, and murder. See Indictment at 7. SNM generates income by having its members and associates traffic drugs and extort narcotic traffickers. See Indictment at 8. SNM members' recent conspiracy to murder high-ranking New Mexico Corrections Department ("NM Corrections Department") Officials inspired the Federal Bureau of Investigation's ("FBI") present investigation. See United States v. Garcia, No. CR 15-4275, Memorandum Opinion and Order at 2, 221 F. Supp. 3d 1275, 1277, filed November 16, 2016 (Doc....
To continue reading
Request your trial